On 2015/7/17 9:35, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Yijing Wang <wangyijing@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> If I'm mistaken, please correct me and explain why this patch is safe.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bjorn, I think pci_bus_sem here was introduced to protect the bus->slots list, because it
>>>> use down_write() here, for bus->devices list, we only traverse it, won't add/remove it, for the latter, down_read() is enough.
>>>> When I posted this patch, I thought we should protect the bus when we start to register a slot,
>>>> something like a big lock at outermost routine to tell others not to touch its children devices, use pci_bus_sem to protect hotplug
>>>> cases is not a good idea, and actually in PCI code, we have found several deadlock caused by the pci_bus_sem.
>>>>
>>>> But for this patch, I know what you worried, what about add a down_read(&pci_bus_sem) to avoid to introduce a regression ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/slot.c b/drivers/pci/slot.c
>>>> index 396c200..a9079d9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/slot.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/slot.c
>>>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>>>
>>>> struct kset *pci_slots_kset;
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_slots_kset);
>>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pci_slot_mutex);
>>>>
>>>> static ssize_t pci_slot_attr_show(struct kobject *kobj,
>>>> struct attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>>> @@ -106,9 +107,11 @@ static void pci_slot_release(struct kobject *kobj)
>>>> dev_dbg(&slot->bus->dev, "dev %02x, released physical slot %s\n",
>>>> slot->number, pci_slot_name(slot));
>>>>
>>>> + down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &slot->bus->devices, bus_list)
>>>> if (PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn) == slot->number)
>>>> dev->slot = NULL;
>>>> + up_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>>
>>>> list_del(&slot->list);
>>>
>>> This list_del() updates the bus->slots list.
>>
>> It's safe here, because we have locked the pci_slot_mutex in pci_destroy_slot(), which is the only caller of pci_slot_release().
>
> That doesn't protect anybody else who might be traversing the
> bus->slots list while we're deleting this entry.
Hi Bjorn, sorry, I don't understand your point, before this patch, we use pci_bus_sem to protect the whole pci_slot_release(),
in which, we would traverse the bus->devices list and update the bus->slots list. And now what we did is introduce a new pci_slot_mutex
to protect the bus->slots here, and use down_read(pci_bus_sem) instead of down_write(pci_bus_sem).
Could you explain it a little more ?
Thanks!
Yijing.
>
>>>> @@ -195,7 +198,7 @@ static struct pci_slot *get_slot(struct pci_bus *parent, int slot_nr)
>>>> {
>>>> struct pci_slot *slot;
>>>> /*
>>>> - * We already hold pci_bus_sem so don't worry
>>>> + * We already hold pci_slot_mutex so don't worry
>>>> */
>>>> list_for_each_entry(slot, &parent->slots, list)
>>>> if (slot->number == slot_nr) {
>>>> @@ -253,7 +256,7 @@ struct pci_slot *pci_create_slot(struct pci_bus *parent, int slot_nr,
>>>> int err = 0;
>>>> char *slot_name = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> - down_write(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>> + mutex_lock(&pci_slot_mutex);
>>>>
>>>> if (slot_nr == -1)
>>>> goto placeholder;
>>>> @@ -301,16 +304,18 @@ placeholder:
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&slot->list);
>>>> list_add(&slot->list, &parent->slots);
>>>>
>>>> + down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &parent->devices, bus_list)
>>>> if (PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn) == slot_nr)
>>>> dev->slot = slot;
>>>> + up_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>>
>>>> dev_dbg(&parent->dev, "dev %02x, created physical slot %s\n",
>>>> slot_nr, pci_slot_name(slot));
>>>>
>>>> out:
>>>> kfree(slot_name);
>>>> - up_write(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pci_slot_mutex);
>>>> return slot;
>>>> err:
>>>> kfree(slot);
>>>> @@ -332,9 +337,9 @@ void pci_destroy_slot(struct pci_slot *slot)
>>>> dev_dbg(&slot->bus->dev, "dev %02x, dec refcount to %d\n",
>>>> slot->number, atomic_read(&slot->kobj.kref.refcount) - 1);
>>>>
>>>> - down_write(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>> + mutex_lock(&pci_slot_mutex);
>>>> kobject_put(&slot->kobj);
>>>> - up_write(&pci_bus_sem);
>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pci_slot_mutex);
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_destroy_slot);
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks!
>> Yijing
>>
>
> .
>
--
Thanks!
Yijing
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
